JUDGMENT

Darling S.M.

1. On the 6th August, I936, Muhammad Idris Khan presented an application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act, claiming to be a landlord within the meaning of the Act by virtue of paying and revenue to the amount of Rs. 13.l3.0, on which the local rate would be at least Re. 1: extracts from the khewat for 1344 F. were attached to the application. On the same day without making any enquiry the Assistant Collector acting with the powers of a Collector passed an order u/s 6 and directed that it be forwarded to the Special Judge: the order was actually forwarded on the 14th idem. Subsequently on the objections lodged by two creditors it transpired that the appplicant was not a landlord within the definition of Clause (g), with the proviso attached thereto, of Section 2 of the Act: the landed property in question had been acquired since the passing of the Act. By the decision of our predecessor in the Agra case of Seth Bidhi Chand v. Lala Karori Mal decided on the 7th August, 1936 (1936) 1936 AWR 826, it is essential that, anyone who wishes to benefit by the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act must have been a landlord when that Act was passed. Accordingly by his